Canon Lens Options question- yes another one

[Buzzaro]

I've got a T2i with the 18-55, 55-250 kit lenses and also the 50/1.8. I also use a speedlite 320 flash. This is the first time I've learned anything about photography beyond point and shoot. There's quite a bit to it, especially after you get beyond "what does this button do?". I started with the two kit lenses and reached the limits of what they could do pretty quickly. I got a 50/1.8 lens and the flash and have been very happy with the results. The 50 on its own is quite an improvement and then you add the flash and the results (to me) are amazing. So getting to my question, what I really miss is a zoom. I just find that adjusting the distance of the camera to the subject just isn't always the best option, or takes too much time and will miss the shot. Also for indoor shooting, the 50 isn't always wide enough. Is there a zoom equivalent to the 50/1.8? Another clear bang for the buck lens in the zoom category? I could use the 18-55 with the flash but the images are so clearly inferior that it's really hard to go back. I'm not really constrained in a certain budget, but just wondering at what price comparable image quality in a zoom lens starts.
As a second question, with the Canon autofocus does the focusing more rely on the camera body or the lens? The focusing on the 50 has more trouble as the light gets less and less, would a better lens help this?
Thanks guys

[wfooshee]

Autofocus requires a certain amount of light. The sensors have to see what they're looking at. That's why the 50 works better in lower light, because it's a faster lens (larger aperture/lower f-number.) Even that will stop working if it gets dark enough.

I assume that what you mean by is there a zoom equivalent to the 50 is whether there is a zoom in that range that can see in lower light, i.e. is faster. Fast zooms are $$$$$. Simple as that.

The T2i is not a full-frame sensor, which means that the 50mm lens is actually slightly telephoto, definitely not wide enough for many indoor uses. If you need a wider lens and also need large apertures, you may want to look around for a 35mm prime, or even a 28 or 24 mm. Those lenses in Canon's line are all significantly more expensive than your 50, though, by 2 or 3 times, and f/2.8 is about as fast as they come. The 35 would be a "normal" lens, and the 28 or 24 would give you a wider angle.

[Buzzaro]

I assume that what you mean by is there a zoom equivalent to the 50 is whether there is a zoom in that range that can see in lower light, i.e. is faster. Fast zooms are $$$$$. Simple as that.
.

I guess what I am really asking is what lenses would take comparable quality photos as the 50 but have the zoom range of the 18-55. I guess I was hoping there is the zoom equivalent of the 50/1.8, a good bang for the buck zoom. Also seeing what other options are available. Of course there are always the L lenses but like you said, $$$$$.

So as far as the autofocus, the action itself takes place within the camera and the lens just controls how much light the system has to work with. Thanks

[wfooshee]

Well, the camera's brains control the autofocus and look at the sensors, but the motor to drive the focus is in the lens. So optically, it's all in the camera except for the maximum aperture the lens is capable of. Electronically they're partners. Clear?

[EOSThree]

I just lost my dissertation on AF but wfooshee is correct. The camera contains the AF array, the lens contains the AF motor, the lens determines the maximum aperture (amount of light to the AF sensors).

The body usually contains an array of AF sensors that detect contrast, there are horizontal and cross type (better because it detects both horizontal and vertical) sensors. I think your body only has one cross type sensor. The cross type sensors only work with lenses with a large aperture (opening) f/2.8 and larger (the smaller the number the larger the opening).

The lenses (especially zoom lenses) with larger apertures, and with constant (the same f/number across the entire zoom range) apertures are very much more expensive. They are also made better, made more carefully, and many times contain exotic elements in them. They also take the most advantage of the AF system because of the amount of light they allow to the AF sensors.

The least expensive way to get large aperture lenses is to go with prime lenses (lenses with only one focal length) like your 50mm. Zoom lenses are a lot more complicated, and to manufacture one with a large aperture is a lot more complicated and a lot more expensive. Zoom lenses however are a lot more versatile giving you many focal lengths in one package

Prime lenses are in almost every case better lenses than zooms optically. The design is simple. They are also usually cheaper than zooms. It just depends if you value versatility over cost and optical purity. Don't get me wrong the top zooms are pretty darn good optically, but for the best ones you'll be paying anywhere between $1K and $3K. You have decide what it's worth to you.

A couple of better lenses than your 18-55 with better build and optics are:
Tamron 12-24 f/4
Canon 17-40 f/4
They both go for around $700 have excellent optics and great solid builds. They aren't as fast (larger aperture) as the best zooms out there, but they aren't as hard on the pocket book either.

[Buzzaro]

It seems there are 3 lenses I've come across in the last few days that seem to fit the "budget + quality" zoom lens category
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 xr Di LD - around $500
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM - around $1000
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II VC - around $650

These all seem to get decent reviews, but I am not sure how they really compare to each other. Maybe there are others around this pricepoint that I missed? I know 500-1000 is a large range but I wanted to keep a Canon lens in for comparison. Are there prime lenses I'm overlooking that would give similar quality image/performance that I didn't see? I really only saw the the Zeiss lenses but they were what seemed to be crazy expensive for a prime.
Thanks for all the input

[EOSThree]

The Tamron 28-75 has excellent optics, but the packaging is poor, lightweight cheap plastics with a slow slow focusing motor.
I am not familiar with the Canon, but if it were my choice it would be my first in that list. I am not a big Tamron fan, they get the optics right a lot of the time, but something has to give to get that price and it's the build with a Tamron. I've owned a couple and I will never own one again.
If I were to go with a third party lens it would be a Tokina or high end Sigma, I usually look to Canon first though, I have never been disappointed with a Canon.

[salluu]

i have Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM and its works great

[xystren]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II VC and from the little bit that I have used it, I absolutely love it. A great and vast improvement over the any of the kit lens. It has a good solid feel to it, though, the zoom direction is reversed from the Canon lenses - take a bit to get used to, but not a show stopper in my mind. The VC (vibration compensation) is great - amazing when compared to the IS of my kit lens. I can get nice sharp hand-held shots at 50mm with a shutter speed down to 1/10sec or slower. On the IS kit lens it was hit or miss at 1/30sec.

I've been impressed enough with this Tamron lens, I'm considering their AF18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD. I like the hefty zoom range in the single lens and from what I've read, the quality is extremely good throughout the full range.

I don't think I've encountered the build issues that EOSThree mentioned Then again, mine isn't much older than about 2 months - so I have not had to time to "break it in" yet. The issues with Tamron I did encounter was administrative (registration) rather than build related. I posted the registration difficulties on that in another forum... In the end I was able to get it resolved.

From my understanding, one reason that Tamron tends to be a bit more inexpensive than Sigma or the Tokina, is Tamron reverse engineers the body/lens communication, while Sigma and Tokina license it from the manufacture. The lack of licensing costs are likely what accounts for the price difference.

I also have the Canon EF-50mm f/1.8 which I also love, but I find with my Tamron, I don't pull it out as much as I used to.

As for comparison to other 3rd party lenses I can only compare to what I have, which are mostly kit and entry level. When I was looking at lenses, I found Tokina didn't have any lenses with stabilization - I tend to shoot in low light environments, so any extra I can get with stabilization, for me is an important factor. If I was shooting with a tri/mono-pod it would be less of a concern. The Sigma lens I wanted were just outside of my budget constraints. Hence why I went with Tamron which I found a great price on and not to mention that Tamron had a $50 manufacture rebate also.

As will all things photography, it a game of compromises, in much the same way we weight depth of field vs shutter speed in the photos we take. I'm very happy with the compromise I made with my Tamron lens.

[Buzzaro]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II VC and from the little bit that I have used it, I absolutely love it. A great and vast improvement over the any of the kit lens. It has a good solid feel to it, though, the zoom direction is reversed from the Canon lenses - take a bit to get used to, but not a show stopper in my mind. The VC (vibration compensation) is great - amazing when compared to the IS of my kit lens. I can get nice sharp hand-held shots at 50mm with a shutter speed down to 1/10sec or slower. On the IS kit lens it was hit or miss at 1/30sec.

I've been impressed enough with this Tamron lens, I'm considering their AF18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD. I like the hefty zoom range in the single lens and from what I've read, the quality is extremely good throughout the full range.

I don't think I've encountered the build issues that EOSThree mentioned Then again, mine isn't much older than about 2 months - so I have not had to time to "break it in" yet. The issues with Tamron I did encounter was administrative (registration) rather than build related. I posted the registration difficulties on that in another forum... In the end I was able to get it resolved.

From my understanding, one reason that Tamron tends to be a bit more inexpensive than Sigma or the Tokina, is Tamron reverse engineers the body/lens communication, while Sigma and Tokina license it from the manufacture. The lack of licensing costs are likely what accounts for the price difference.

I also have the Canon EF-50mm f/1.8 which I also love, but I find with my Tamron, I don't pull it out as much as I used to.

As for comparison to other 3rd party lenses I can only compare to what I have, which are mostly kit and entry level. When I was looking at lenses, I found Tokina didn't have any lenses with stabilization - I tend to shoot in low light environments, so any extra I can get with stabilization, for me is an important factor. If I was shooting with a tri/mono-pod it would be less of a concern. The Sigma lens I wanted were just outside of my budget constraints. Hence why I went with Tamron which I found a great price on and not to mention that Tamron had a $50 manufacture rebate also.

As will all things photography, it a game of compromises, in much the same way we weight depth of field vs shutter speed in the photos we take. I'm very happy with the compromise I made with my Tamron lens.

How do you think the tamron photos compare to the 50/1.8? That's currently my only lens besides the two kit lenses. I found the 50 so much better than the kit lenses that I never use them, even though the zoom is sometimes missed.

[xystren]

How do you think the tamron photos compare to the 50/1.8? That's currently my only lens besides the two kit lenses. I found the 50 so much better than the kit lenses that I never use them, even though the zoom is sometimes missed.

Generally, as a rule, a prime lens will always be sharper than it's zoom counter parts. And yes, the 50mm is a huge improvement over the kit lens. Before my Tamron, it was my favorite lens. I would say the sharpness/clarity overall is better on the 50mm, as it the depth of field (you get that little bit more).

I'm just about to leave on the plane for a small vacation, but when I get a chance, I will pull a couple pictures, one with the Tamron and the other with the 50mm for comparison. Sometimes the best way is to see a sample.

[Buzzaro]

Generally, as a rule, a prime lens will always be sharper than it's zoom counter parts. And yes, the 50mm is a huge improvement over the kit lens. Before my Tamron, it was my favorite lens. I would say the sharpness/clarity overall is better on the 50mm, as it the depth of field (you get that little bit more).

I'm just about to leave on the plane for a small vacation, but when I get a chance, I will pull a couple pictures, one with the Tamron and the other with the 50mm for comparison. Sometimes the best way is to see a sample.

Great, thank you. I look forward to seeing the pictures.